The Prince will also take advantage of the proximity with Australia to subsequently visit the country in a bid to boost support for the English monarchy in a country where a republic is increasingly popular.

I've read somewhere that the reason Australians want to do away with the monarchy is because they want an Australian head of state, not a British one. The same probably goes for Canada.

In America you have to have been born in the country in order to be its Head of State.

We don't want to go that far but do want a Head of State who is first and foremost one of us and not a foreigner whose loyaties are necessarily divided.

An example - both England and Australia are bidding to host the 2018 or 2022 Football World Cup and Prince William is going to be supporting the England bid - no problem there but .... how can the 2nd in line to be King of Australia actively support the bid of another country against us (and vice versa). It is unsupportable in this day and age that the grandson of our Head of State is actively supporting another country. He is even going to the World Cup to support England but not New Zealand or Australia or any other country of which the Queen is Head of State who also made it.

It is things like this that have turned me from a monarchist in 1999 to looking forward to the next referredum in order to vote Yes to a republic.

The majority of Canadians don't want to do away with the monarchy. There isn't an organized republican movement here. There's grumbling when the costs are published after a Royal visit, but that's about it.

In America you have to have been born in the country in order to be its Head of State...

I empathize with you on what you said above about the loyalties being divided. I absolutely understand where you're coming from. And, you have every right to demand a head of state that only has Australian interests at heart.

But, I also understand why Prince William didn't support Australia in its bid for 2018 or 2022 Football World Cup. He is known as the grandson of the 'Queen of England or Queen of Great Britain.' He is second in line to throne of England or Great Britain. He will become 'King Regnant' of Australia, New Zealand, The Bahamas etc, upon becoming the King of England. I know this might not sound so good, but I didn't know that the Queen was 'queen regnant' of 16 other sovereign states including Australia, and a lot of people don't know that either. So, I understand why England is being given priority in this case. The "BRF" lives in England. It would have been a PR disaster, if he were to chose Australia above England. I can understand choosing Australia above Indonesia or Japan or The Netherlands, or Portugal etc. But, I don't see him choosing Australia over England.

__________________
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife."--P&P

And that is why he should never be King of Australia - he has no ties to this country and he can never put us first. All countries need a Head of State who can lobby for them but our Head of State can't and won't. When they do lobbying they do it for England (not even Britain in many cases) and so the sooner they are gone from Australia the better.

William is the President of the FA (the Football Association of the UK), the lobbying he's doing for the World Cup to come to the UK is as President of that Association, not as the heir to the monarchy. He's not the President of the Australian Football (soccer) association there are no divided loyalties here. Plus it's very trite to reduce what form of government Australia is to have over sporting loyalties! Surely Australians are more mature than that!

It is an example of why the British Royal Family and the Queen of Britain should no longer be associated with Australia but not the only reason.

Certainly he has a position in the FA but he is also the grandson of our Head of State so he should have divided loyalties. The fact that he, and the rest of his family don't, is even more reason to end their association with foreign countries. They can't or won't give their total loyalty in any sphere to Australia and so it is time for them to concentrate on Britain.

The Head of State should have only one country to which they give their total and undivided loyalty but the British Royal Family (note British not Australian) clearly favour Britain (as they should) but they and we need to move beyond any association but that of friendly powers.

They see themselves as British.

He is coming to Australia for the first time since he was here as a baby - tells you have important his grandmother's other realms are to him, and them.

In this day and age. And going into a new century, things are starting to change. Antarctica as well as the North Pole is starting to warm because of global warming and the world's people are even starting to change. Why do we need royalty in a time that is so different from when Queen Elizabeth first ascended the throne?

I think that all countries in the world should become republics and we should all be treated equal. The Queen is treated better because she was born into a wealthy family. No man should have to bow to another man. It says so in God's word. In some religions it is even a sin to bow. King's in Middle Eastern countries don't even get that. So why should some Anglo-British woman who is a descendant of nobleman in Europe get that treatment?

Greece became a republic just as France. After getting rid of the monarchies they had they are doing fine. What does a monarchy do for a country that a republic can not do? They both cost the same. France's president costs less than the Queen!

I think Australia would be better off without the monarchy. When people think of Australia you don't think of the Queen (like in the UK). I didn't even know she was Australia's Queen until I took history class. I don't understand why she is the Queen there? What does she do for Australia, Canada, the UK, or New Zealand?

I think Australia would be better off without the monarchy. When people think of Australia you don't think of the Queen (like in the UK). I didn't even know she was Australia's Queen until I took history class. I don't understand why she is the Queen there? What does she do for Australia, Canada, the UK, or New Zealand?

You speak as though you have a vested interest in Australia. Because unless you do, saying that Australia would be better off without a monarchy seems to be a curious thing for a foreigner to proclaim. And how do you know this? Quite simply, you do not.

When reflecting upon your post, you give very little reason for the abolition of the Australian monarchy other than your apparent republicanism prejudices.

You have your form of government, we have ours'. It may change, it may not. But as it stands, the Commonwealth of Australia happens to function exceptionally well with the current model of government and has done so since Federation in 1901. To suggest that Australian's remove one form of sovereignty and replace it with another because you feel the monarchy has no place in a modern world is, well, very narrow minded.

In the US, a president is Head of State for two terms before his retirement from office. Presidents come and go, a constitutional monarch is Head of State until either death or abdication. For you clearly do not see the benefit of having a Head of State who is, for the most part, above politics and who is a sovereign symbol of continuity for life. I don't intend to suggest you shouldn't, or aren't entitled to have an opinion; but from what I've read in this and other threads, it's emphatically clear that you are not inclined to be objective on the matter.

From what I've read thus far, your argument doesn't seem to be very pursuasive as there is little which could be considered substantiative about it. Merely, an arduous "republics' are better" stance which is yet to be proven, let alone taken seriously as there is little credence to support any such theory.

Quote:

King's in Middle Eastern countries don't even get that

Indeed they do. Your very own President bowed before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia earlier this year when being presented.

The simple reason why she is our Queen is our History. Australia was settled by the British in 1788 and even today the majority of our people's roots are in Britain although the size of that majority is reducing annually. NZers are the next biggest group I think and they too are largely British.

Whether she should be is another question and one that we Australians will deal with again at some time in the future.

10 years ago we voted to keep her (or at least not to change to a President chosen by our parliament). 10 years down the track the idea raises its head again every so often but when we will get another chance to vote who knows.

You speak as though you have a vested interest in Australia. Because unless you do, saying that Australia would be better off without a monarchy seems to be a curious thing for a foreigner to proclaim. And how do you know this? Quite simply, you do not.

Since you are so inclined to tell me what I know and do not know. May I ask you a question? What does the Queen do in any of her royal duties that reflect Australia?

When she came to the U.S. and visited President Bush she came here as "Queen of the United Kingdom". So what does the other Commonwealth Realms benefit from that visit if she doesn't do any diplomatic work for them in other countries? Only when she visits Australia as Queen of Australia??

When she does royal duties in the UK and abroad it is FOR THE UK, what do you as a citizen get out of it?

Why have her as Queen of a country, that she doesn't do anything for. That is all that I am saying ma'am.

Actually she has done things are Queen of Australia elsewhere but it is rare e.g. a couple of years ago she unveiled a memorial in London to Australians soldiers who had given their lives to the Empire in World Wars One and Two. She did so as Queen of Australia.

We actually have two Heads of State - one effective and one symbolic - the Queen is a symbolic head but her representative, the Governor-General is the effective Head of State and does all the Head of State duties that others do.

I sincerely believe that Australia should be a republic, not because I believe that republics are inherently better but because I have come to believe that it is time for the effective Head of State to be a total Head and not be represtenting anyone but the Australian people.

However, if there was a way to have our own monarchy e.g. Prince Harry permanently stationed here as our King, married to an Aussie girl with children raised and educated here to be our future royal family I wouldn't support a monarchy.

I think Queen Victoria missed the boat in the 1800s when she could have set up her sons and grandsons as the Kings of the Empire's different states as they sought and gained independence - Canada, New Zealand and Australia and these discussion wouldn't even arise. If, for instance, our present monarch was the third or fourth generation from Victorian but had been here for 100 years then I don't think there would be any calls for a republic.

I sincerely believe that Australia should be a republic, not because I believe that republics are inherently better but because I have come to believe that it is time for the effective Head of State to be a total Head and not be represtenting anyone but the Australian people.

I couldn't agree with you more. That is all I was trying to say before everyone on here attacked me. Gosh....

Actually in some cultures and religions it is a sin to bow to another human being. I read the bible and it is clearly forbidden.

I think that Obama is a kiss-up. No other president has ever done that. I read a online article and they showed how Obama bowed to royals. And Bush and Cheney didn't even bother. The online article also showed how in the 50's and 60's when royals met presidents. The president's clearly didn't respect the whole royal prerogative mumbo-jumbo. LOL

Personally, people can bow to whoever they want to. If I met a royal I would never bow. They aren't above me. We're on the same level!

Wedmonds...you are certainly entitled to your opinion and the right to express it. You appear to be (as you proclaimed yourself to be) a anti-monarchist? Why then would you join a Royal Board?

You mention that people were attacking...I of course can't speak for what you feel...but its worth noting that you have attacked a way of life or form of government that for all intents and purposes you have little knowledge of. You are making general statements that monarchy is the bad, and yet it appears that you don't know what the Queen does for Britain or the Commonwealth. Nor do you know the role of the Governor General of each Commonwealth state.

You have expressed your opinion that you believe everyone is the same and equal.....I would gather that those who follow royalty agree with that sentiment.

Both Iluvbertie and Madame Royale are citizens of Australia and have provided two different Australian view points. I believe that their opinions show how some voted the last time regarding the issue of an Australian republic came up and perhaps an insight what will happen in the future. Since for all intents and purposes they walk the walk (being Australian) they allowed to talk the talk (giving reasons why they are pro monarchy or pro republic.) Each was defending their position in an articulate, civil and respectful manner.

When she came to the U.S. and visited President Bush she came here as "Queen of the United Kingdom". So what does the other Commonwealth Realms benefit from that visit if she doesn't do any diplomatic work for them in other countries? Only when she visits Australia as Queen of Australia??

The Queen is

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith.

Her title doesn't change when she chooses.

The Queen is Queen of Australia via history she can't help the fact that she lives in england.
I agree with IluvBertie, Queen Victoria should have placed her children in charge of each dominion.

Since 1973, she has been Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of ---- and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth in Australia and most other Commonwealth Realms; although in Canada and the UK she is still Defender of the Faith.

__________________

God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbeyhttp://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley